wtf-p 0.1.0

package/write-the-f-paper/workflows/plan-section.md

@@ -0,0 +1,409 @@
+<decimal_section_numbering>
+Decimal sections enable urgent content insertion without renumbering:
+
+- Integer sections (1, 2, 3) = planned document structure
+- Decimal sections (2.1, 2.2) = urgent insertions between integers
+
+**Rules:**
+- Decimals between consecutive integers (2.1 between 2 and 3)
+- Filesystem sorting works automatically (2 < 2.1 < 2.2 < 3)
+- Directory format: `02.1-description/`, Plan format: `02.1-01-PLAN.md`
+
+**Validation:** Integer X must exist and be complete, X+1 must exist, decimal X.Y must not exist, Y >= 1
+</decimal_section_numbering>
+
+<required_reading>
+**Read these files NOW:**
+
+1. ~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/templates/section-prompt.md
+2. ~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/references/plan-format.md
+3. ~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/references/verification-layers.md
+4. .planning/ROADMAP.md
+5. .planning/PROJECT.md
+
+**Load structure files:**
+- .planning/structure/argument-map.md
+- .planning/structure/outline.md
+- .planning/structure/narrative-arc.md
+</required_reading>
+
+<purpose>
+Create an executable section prompt (PLAN.md). PLAN.md IS the prompt that Claude executes - not a document that gets transformed.
+</purpose>
+
+<planning_principles>
+**Argument-first:** Every paragraph must serve the core argument. Plan prose that advances the thesis, not filler.
+
+**Evidence-grounded:** Plan where citations go before writing. Claims need sources identified.
+
+**Reader-aware:** Plan for the target audience. Technical depth, assumed knowledge, explanation level.
+</planning_principles>
+
+<process>
+
+<step name="load_project_state" priority="first">
+Read `.planning/STATE.md` and parse:
+- Current position (which section we're planning)
+- Accumulated decisions (constraints on this section)
+- Open questions (things this section may need to address)
+- Argument strength (how solid is the overall thesis)
+
+If STATE.md missing but .planning/ exists, offer to reconstruct or continue without.
+</step>
+
+<step name="load_structure_context">
+Check for structure documents:
+
+```bash
+ls .planning/structure/*.md 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+**If .planning/structure/ exists:** Load relevant documents:
+
+| Section Type | Load These |
+|--------------|------------|
+| Introduction | argument-map.md, narrative-arc.md |
+| Methods | argument-map.md (what claims need methodological support) |
+| Results | argument-map.md (which claims get supported here) |
+| Discussion | argument-map.md, narrative-arc.md |
+| Related Work | argument-map.md (positioning), literature.md |
+| Abstract | All (summary of everything) |
+
+Track extracted context for PLAN.md context section.
+</step>
+
+<step name="identify_section">
+Check roadmap and existing sections:
+
+```bash
+cat .planning/ROADMAP.md
+ls .planning/sections/
+```
+
+If multiple sections available, ask which one to plan. If obvious (first incomplete section), proceed.
+
+**Section number parsing:** Regex `^(\d+)(?:\.(\d+))?$` - Group 1: integer, Group 2: decimal (optional)
+
+**If decimal section:** Validate integer X exists and is complete, X+1 exists in roadmap, decimal X.Y doesn't exist, Y >= 1.
+
+Read any existing PLAN.md or RESEARCH.md in the section directory.
+</step>
+
+<step name="mandatory_literature_check">
+**Literature check is MANDATORY for sections flagged with Research: Likely.**
+
+<literature_decision>
+**Level 0 - Skip** (internal content only)
+- Section is about own methods/results
+- No claims requiring external evidence
+- Examples: Describing own data collection, presenting own findings
+
+**Level 1 - Quick Verification** (2-5 min)
+- Single source to verify
+- Confirming a specific citation
+- Action: Quick check, no RESEARCH.md needed
+
+**Level 2 - Standard Research** (15-30 min)
+- Need to cite multiple sources
+- Positioning against prior work
+- Action: Route to workflows/research-gap.md, produces RESEARCH.md
+
+**Level 3 - Deep Literature Review** (1+ hour)
+- Core literature review section
+- Establishing theoretical framework
+- Comprehensive gap analysis
+- Action: Route to workflows/research-gap.md depth=deep, full RESEARCH.md
+</literature_decision>
+
+If roadmap flagged `Research: Likely`, Level 0 (skip) is not available.
+</step>
+
+<step name="read_prior_sections">
+**Intelligent context assembly from completed sections:**
+
+**1. Scan all summary frontmatter:**
+
+```bash
+for f in .planning/sections/*/*-SUMMARY.md; do
+  sed -n '1,/^---$/p; /^---$/q' "$f" | head -30
+done
+```
+
+Parse to extract: section, subsection, key-claims, evidence-used, decisions
+
+**2. Build dependency context for current section:**
+
+- **Check logical flow:** What claims from prior sections does this section build on?
+- **Check evidence used:** What sources were already cited?
+- **Check decisions:** What stylistic or structural decisions constrain this section?
+
+**3. Select relevant summaries:**
+
+Auto-select sections that match ANY of:
+- Current section directly follows (immediate prior)
+- Shares argumentative thread (part of same logical chain)
+- Explicitly mentioned in STATE.md as affecting current section
+
+**4. Extract context from summaries:**
+
+From selected sections, extract:
+- **Claims established:** What's been argued so far
+- **Evidence cited:** Sources already used (avoid over-citation)
+- **Patterns established:** Writing style, terminology decisions
+- **Decisions:** Key choices from prior sections
+
+**Answer before proceeding:**
+- Q1: What claims from previous sections does this section build on?
+- Q2: What sources have already been cited that might be relevant?
+- Q3: What writing patterns should be maintained?
+- Q4: Given all context, does the roadmap's section goal still make sense?
+</step>
+
+<step name="gather_section_context">
+Understand:
+- Section goal (from roadmap)
+- Word budget (from roadmap)
+- What exists already (prior drafts in sources/prior-drafts.md?)
+- Dependencies met (previous sections complete?)
+- Any {section}-RESEARCH.md (from /wtfp:research-gap)
+- Any {section}-CONTEXT.md (from /wtfp:discuss-section)
+
+```bash
+# Check for literature research (from /wtfp:research-gap)
+cat .planning/sections/XX-name/${SECTION}-RESEARCH.md 2>/dev/null
+
+# Check for section context (from /wtfp:discuss-section)
+cat .planning/sections/XX-name/${SECTION}-CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null
+
+# Check for prior drafts
+cat .planning/sources/prior-drafts.md 2>/dev/null
+```
+
+**If RESEARCH.md exists:** Use sources (cite these), key_findings (incorporate), gaps (address or note), positioning (how we differ from prior work).
+
+**If CONTEXT.md exists:** Honor vision, prioritize essential content, respect boundaries, incorporate user specifics.
+
+**If neither exist:** Suggest /wtfp:research-gap for literature-heavy sections, /wtfp:discuss-section for simpler sections.
+</step>
+
+<step name="break_into_tasks">
+Decompose section into writing tasks.
+
+**Writing tasks need:**
+- **Type**: auto, checkpoint:human-verify, checkpoint:decision
+- **Task name**: Clear, action-oriented
+- **Paragraphs/Subsections**: Which part of section
+- **Action**: Specific writing action (draft, revise, cite, strengthen)
+- **Mode**: co-author (Claude drafts), scaffold (Claude outlines), reviewer (Claude critiques)
+- **Verify**: How to prove it's done well
+- **Done**: Acceptance criteria
+
+**Task types by section:**
+
+| Section | Typical Tasks |
+|---------|--------------|
+| Abstract | Draft complete abstract, verify all elements present |
+| Introduction | Hook paragraph, context paragraphs, gap statement, thesis, roadmap |
+| Methods | Protocol description, measures, analysis approach |
+| Results | Finding 1 narrative, Finding 2 narrative, supporting analyses |
+| Discussion | Summary, interpretation, limitations, future work, conclusion |
+| Related Work | Theme 1 synthesis, Theme 2 synthesis, positioning statement |
+
+**Mode selection per task:**
+- Procedural content (methods, data description) → co-author
+- Argument-heavy content (discussion, intro) → scaffold or reviewer
+- Personal voice required (abstract conclusion, thesis) → scaffold with user writing
+
+**Checkpoints:** Visual/prose verification → checkpoint:human-verify. Voice/framing choices → checkpoint:decision.
+</step>
+
+<step name="estimate_scope">
+After tasks, assess against quality needs.
+
+**Check depth setting:**
+```bash
+cat .planning/config.json 2>/dev/null | grep depth
+```
+
+<depth_aware_splitting>
+**Depth controls thoroughness, not artificial padding.**
+
+| Depth | Typical Plans/Section | Tasks/Plan |
+|-------|----------------------|------------|
+| Quick | 1-2 | 2-3 |
+| Standard | 2-4 | 2-3 |
+| Comprehensive | 3-6 | 2-3 |
+
+**Key principle:** Derive plans from actual writing needs. Depth determines how carefully you break down complex sections.
+
+- Comprehensive Discussion = 4 plans (interpretation, limitations, future work, conclusion)
+- Comprehensive Abstract = 1 plan (it's just one paragraph)
+
+For comprehensive depth:
+- Create MORE plans for complex sections, not longer ones
+- Each plan stays focused: 2-3 tasks, single concern
+
+For quick depth:
+- Combine aggressively into fewer plans
+- Focus on critical argument path
+</depth_aware_splitting>
+
+**ALWAYS split if:** >3 tasks, multiple argumentative threads, complex literature integration.
+
+**Each plan must be:** 2-3 tasks max, focused on one aspect, independently verifiable.
+</step>
+
+<step name="confirm_breakdown">
+<if mode="yolo">
+Auto-approve and proceed to write_section_prompt.
+</if>
+
+<if mode="interactive">
+Present breakdown inline:
+
+```
+Section [X] breakdown:
+
+### Tasks ({section}-01-PLAN.md)
+1. [Task] - [brief] [type] [mode]
+2. [Task] - [brief] [type] [mode]
+
+Does this look right? (yes / adjust / start over)
+```
+
+For multiple plans, show each plan with its tasks.
+
+Wait for confirmation. If "adjust": revise. If "start over": return to gather_section_context.
+</if>
+</step>
+
+<step name="write_section_prompt">
+Use template from `~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/templates/section-prompt.md`.
+
+**Single plan:** Write to `.planning/sections/XX-name/{section}-01-PLAN.md`
+
+**Multiple plans:** Write separate files ({section}-01-PLAN.md, {section}-02-PLAN.md, etc.)
+
+Each plan follows template structure with:
+- Frontmatter (section, plan, type, mode)
+- Objective (plan-specific goal, word target, output)
+- Execution context (write-section.md, summary template, verification-layers.md)
+- Context (@references to PROJECT, ROADMAP, STATE, structure docs, RESEARCH/CONTEXT if exist, prior summaries, sources)
+- Tasks (XML format with types and modes)
+- Verification (citation check, coherence check, rubric check)
+- Success criteria, Output specification
+
+**Context section population:**
+
+```markdown
+<context>
+@.planning/PROJECT.md
+@.planning/ROADMAP.md
+@.planning/STATE.md
+
+# Structure documents:
+@.planning/structure/argument-map.md
+@.planning/structure/narrative-arc.md
+
+# Auto-selected based on logical flow:
+@.planning/sections/XX-name/YY-ZZ-SUMMARY.md
+
+# Key sources (relevant to this section):
+@.planning/sources/literature.md
+@.planning/sources/data.md
+
+**Argument thread:** [what this section must establish]
+**Prior claims to build on:** [from frontmatter analysis]
+**Sources to cite:** [identified from RESEARCH.md or literature.md]
+
+**Decisions constraining this section:** [If any from STATE.md]
+</context>
+```
+</step>
+
+<step name="git_commit">
+Commit section plan(s):
+
+```bash
+# Stage all PLAN.md files for this section
+git add .planning/sections/${SECTION}-*/${SECTION}-*-PLAN.md
+
+# Also stage RESEARCH.md if it was created during mandatory_literature_check
+git add .planning/sections/${SECTION}-*/RESEARCH.md 2>/dev/null
+
+git commit -m "$(cat <<'EOF'
+docs(${SECTION}): create section plan
+
+Section ${SECTION}: ${SECTION_NAME}
+- [N] plan(s) created
+- [X] total tasks defined
+- Ready for writing
+EOF
+)"
+```
+
+Confirm: "Committed: docs(${SECTION}): create section plan"
+</step>
+
+<step name="offer_next">
+```
+Section plan created: .planning/sections/XX-name/{section}-01-PLAN.md
+[X] tasks defined.
+
+---
+
+## Next Up
+
+**{section}-01: [Plan Name]** - [objective summary]
+
+`/wtfp:write-section .planning/sections/XX-name/{section}-01-PLAN.md`
+
+<sub>`/clear` first - fresh context window</sub>
+
+---
+
+**Also available:**
+- Review/adjust tasks before writing
+[If multiple plans: - View all plans: `ls .planning/sections/XX-name/*-PLAN.md`]
+
+---
+```
+</step>
+
+</process>
+
+<task_quality>
+**Good tasks:** Specific paragraphs, clear actions, verifiable output
+- "Draft hook paragraph establishing the research gap in autonomous systems"
+- "Write methods subsection on data collection protocol, ~150 words"
+- "Synthesize Smith2023 and Jones2024 findings on intervention efficacy"
+
+**Bad tasks:** Vague, not actionable
+- "Write introduction" / "Add citations" / "Make it better"
+
+If you can't specify Paragraphs + Action + Mode + Verify + Done, the task is too vague.
+</task_quality>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+- No hour estimates
+- No "perfect prose" expectations (first drafts are drafts)
+- No style committee approvals
+- No sub-sub-sub tasks
+Tasks are instructions for Claude writing, not editorial board requirements.
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+Section planning complete when:
+- [ ] STATE.md read, project context absorbed
+- [ ] Mandatory literature check completed (Level 0-3)
+- [ ] Prior sections, sources, structure synthesized
+- [ ] PLAN file(s) exist with XML structure
+- [ ] Each plan: Objective, context, tasks, verification, success criteria, output
+- [ ] @context references included (STATE, RESEARCH if exist, relevant summaries)
+- [ ] Each plan: 2-3 tasks (~focused scope)
+- [ ] Each task: Type, Mode, Paragraphs (if applicable), Action, Verify, Done
+- [ ] Checkpoints properly structured
+- [ ] If RESEARCH.md exists: sources cited in plan, positioning clear
+- [ ] PLAN file(s) committed to git
+- [ ] User knows next steps
+</success_criteria>

package/write-the-f-paper/workflows/plan-section.wcn.md

@@ -0,0 +1,236 @@
+<decimal_section_numbering>
+integers (1,2,3) = planned structure
+decimals (2.1,2.2) = urgent insertions between integers
+Dir format: 02.1-description/, Plan format: 02.1-01-PLAN.md
+Validation: X exists+complete, X+1 exists, X.Y doesn't exist, Y >= 1
+</decimal_section_numbering>
+
+<required_reading>
+READ: ~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/templates/section-prompt.md
+READ: ~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/references/plan-format.md
+READ: ~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/references/verification-layers.md
+READ: .planning/ROADMAP.md
+READ: .planning/PROJECT.md
+LOAD: .planning/structure/argument-map.md, outline.md, narrative-arc.md
+</required_reading>
+
+<purpose>
+Create executable section prompt (PLAN.md). PLAN.md IS the prompt Claude executes - not a doc that gets transformed.
+</purpose>
+
+<planning_principles>
+Argument-first: Every paragraph serves core argument. Plan prose that advances thesis, not filler.
+Evidence-grounded: Plan where citations go before writing. Claims need sources identified.
+Reader-aware: Plan for target audience. Technical depth, assumed knowledge, explanation level.
+</planning_principles>
+
+<process>
+
+[step:load_project_state p=1]
+READ: .planning/STATE.md
+PARSE: current_position, accumulated_decisions, open_questions, argument_strength
+IF missing+.planning_exists → OFFER reconstruct|continue
+[/step]
+
+[step:load_structure_context]
+RUN: ls .planning/structure/*.md 2>/dev/null
+
+STRUCTURE_LOAD{section_type → files}:
+  introduction → argument-map.md, narrative-arc.md
+  methods → argument-map.md (claims needing methodological support)
+  results → argument-map.md (claims supported here)
+  discussion → argument-map.md, narrative-arc.md
+  related_work → argument-map.md (positioning), literature.md
+  abstract → all (summary of everything)
+
+TRACK: extracted context for PLAN.md
+[/step]
+
+[step:identify_section]
+RUN: cat .planning/ROADMAP.md
+RUN: ls .planning/sections/
+IF multiple_available → ASK which to plan
+IF obvious → proceed with first incomplete
+REGEX: ^(\d+)(?:\.(\d+))?$ → Group1: integer, Group2: decimal
+IF decimal → validate: X complete, X+1 exists, X.Y doesn't exist, Y >= 1
+READ: existing PLAN.md or RESEARCH.md in section dir
+[/step]
+
+[step:mandatory_literature_check]
+MANDATORY for sections flagged Research: Likely
+
+LIT_LEVEL{level,desc,action}:
+  0-skip | internal content only, no external evidence | skip
+  1-quick | single source verify, 2-5 min | quick check, no RESEARCH.md
+  2-standard | multiple sources, positioning, 15-30 min | /wtfp:research-gap → RESEARCH.md
+  3-deep | core lit review, theoretical framework, 1+ hr | /wtfp:research-gap depth=deep → full RESEARCH.md
+
+IF roadmap=Research:Likely → Level 0 not available
+[/step]
+
+[step:read_prior_sections]
+RUN: for f in .planning/sections/*/*-SUMMARY.md; do sed -n '1,/^---$/p' "$f" | head -30; done
+PARSE: section, subsection, key-claims, evidence-used, decisions
+
+BUILD context:
+- Check logical flow (what claims does this section build on?)
+- Check evidence used (what sources already cited?)
+- Check decisions (stylistic/structural constraints?)
+
+AUTO-SELECT sections matching:
+- Immediate prior section
+- Same argumentative thread
+- Mentioned in STATE.md as affecting current
+
+EXTRACT from selected:
+- Claims established
+- Evidence cited (avoid over-citation)
+- Patterns established (style, terminology)
+- Decisions
+
+ANSWER before proceeding:
+Q1: What claims from previous sections does this build on?
+Q2: What sources already cited might be relevant?
+Q3: What writing patterns to maintain?
+Q4: Does roadmap goal still make sense given context?
+[/step]
+
+[step:gather_section_context]
+UNDERSTAND: section_goal, word_budget, existing_drafts, dependencies_met
+
+RUN: cat .planning/sections/XX-name/${SECTION}-RESEARCH.md 2>/dev/null
+RUN: cat .planning/sections/XX-name/${SECTION}-CONTEXT.md 2>/dev/null
+RUN: cat .planning/sources/prior-drafts.md 2>/dev/null
+
+IF RESEARCH.md → USE: sources (cite), key_findings (incorporate), gaps (address), positioning
+IF CONTEXT.md → HONOR: vision, essential content, boundaries, user specifics
+IF neither → SUGGEST: /wtfp:research-gap (lit-heavy) or /wtfp:discuss-section (simpler)
+[/step]
+
+[step:break_into_tasks]
+Decompose section into writing tasks.
+
+TASK_FIELDS:
+- Type: auto | checkpoint:human-verify | checkpoint:decision
+- Name: clear, action-oriented
+- Paragraphs/Subsections: which part
+- Action: draft | revise | cite | strengthen
+- Mode: co-author (Claude drafts) | scaffold (Claude outlines) | reviewer (Claude critiques)
+- Verify: how to prove done well
+- Done: acceptance criteria
+
+TASKS_BY_SECTION{section → typical_tasks}:
+  abstract | draft complete, verify elements
+  intro | hook, context, gap, thesis, roadmap
+  methods | protocol, measures, analysis approach
+  results | finding narratives, supporting analyses
+  discussion | summary, interpretation, limitations, future work, conclusion
+  related_work | theme syntheses, positioning statement
+
+MODE_SELECT:
+- Procedural content (methods, data) → co-author
+- Argument-heavy (discussion, intro) → scaffold | reviewer
+- Personal voice (abstract conclusion, thesis) → scaffold + user writing
+
+CHECKPOINTS: visual/prose verify → human-verify. Voice/framing choices → decision.
+[/step]
+
+[step:estimate_scope]
+RUN: cat .planning/config.json 2>/dev/null | grep depth
+
+DEPTH{level,plans_per,tasks_per}:
+  quick | 1-2 | 2-3
+  standard | 2-4 | 2-3
+  comprehensive | 3-6 | 2-3
+
+PRINCIPLE: Derive plans from actual writing needs. Depth = how carefully to break down complex sections.
+- Comprehensive Discussion = 4 plans (interpretation, limitations, future work, conclusion)
+- Comprehensive Abstract = 1 plan (one paragraph)
+
+ALWAYS_SPLIT if: >3 tasks, multiple threads, complex lit integration
+EACH_PLAN must be: 2-3 tasks max, focused on one aspect, independently verifiable
+[/step]
+
+[step:confirm_breakdown]
+IF mode=yolo → auto-approve, proceed
+IF mode=interactive → present breakdown:
+  "Section [X] breakdown:
+   ### Tasks ({section}-01-PLAN.md)
+   1. [Task] - [brief] [type] [mode]
+   2. [Task] - [brief] [type] [mode]
+   Does this look right? (yes/adjust/start over)"
+
+IF adjust → revise
+IF start_over → return to gather_section_context
+[/step]
+
+[step:write_section_prompt]
+READ: ~/.claude/write-the-f-paper/templates/section-prompt.md
+
+SINGLE_PLAN → .planning/sections/XX-name/{section}-01-PLAN.md
+MULTI_PLAN → {section}-01-PLAN.md, {section}-02-PLAN.md, etc.
+
+EACH_PLAN includes:
+- Frontmatter (section, plan, type, mode)
+- Objective (goal, word target, output)
+- Execution context (write-section.md, summary template, verification-layers.md)
+- Context (@refs: PROJECT, ROADMAP, STATE, structure docs, RESEARCH/CONTEXT, prior summaries, sources)
+- Tasks (XML format with types/modes)
+- Verification (citation, coherence, rubric checks)
+- Success criteria, Output specification
+[/step]
+
+[step:git_commit]
+RUN: git add .planning/sections/${SECTION}-*/${SECTION}-*-PLAN.md
+RUN: git add .planning/sections/${SECTION}-*/RESEARCH.md 2>/dev/null
+COMMIT: "docs(${SECTION}): create section plan - [N] plans, [X] tasks"
+EMIT: "Committed: docs(${SECTION}): create section plan"
+[/step]
+
+[step:offer_next]
+EMIT:
+  Section plan created: .planning/sections/XX-name/{section}-01-PLAN.md
+  [X] tasks defined.
+
+  Next: {section}-01: [Plan Name] - [objective]
+  → /wtfp:write-section .planning/sections/XX-name/{section}-01-PLAN.md
+
+  Also: Review/adjust tasks, View all plans
+[/step]
+
+</process>
+
+<task_quality>
+GOOD: Specific paragraphs, clear actions, verifiable output
+- "Draft hook paragraph establishing research gap in autonomous systems"
+- "Write methods subsection on data collection protocol, ~150 words"
+- "Synthesize Smith2023 and Jones2024 findings on intervention efficacy"
+
+BAD: Vague, not actionable
+- "Write introduction" / "Add citations" / "Make it better"
+
+TEST: If you can't specify Paragraphs + Action + Mode + Verify + Done → too vague
+</task_quality>
+
+<anti_patterns>
+- No hour estimates
+- No "perfect prose" expectations (first drafts are drafts)
+- No style committee approvals
+- No sub-sub-sub tasks
+Tasks = instructions for Claude writing, not editorial board requirements.
+</anti_patterns>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- [ ] STATE.md read, project context absorbed
+- [ ] Mandatory literature check completed (Level 0-3)
+- [ ] Prior sections, sources, structure synthesized
+- [ ] PLAN file(s) exist with XML structure
+- [ ] Each plan: Objective, context, tasks, verification, success criteria, output
+- [ ] @context references included (STATE, RESEARCH if exist, relevant summaries)
+- [ ] Each plan: 2-3 tasks (~focused scope)
+- [ ] Each task: Type, Mode, Paragraphs (if applicable), Action, Verify, Done
+- [ ] Checkpoints properly structured
+- [ ] If RESEARCH.md exists: sources cited in plan, positioning clear
+- [ ] PLAN file(s) committed to git
+- [ ] User knows next steps
+</success_criteria>